SEWoG ?

[pran]

[hv=pc=n&s=saq2haq97dt83cj75&w=st853hk6432dj5ck3&n=skj9hjt85da97c964&e=s764hdkq642caqt82&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=2np3cppdppp]399|300|Result 9 tricks[/hv]

2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural.

 

When East passed with his second call South asked what was going on and was told that 2NT had been mis-explained, it shows a weak hand with (at least) 5-5 in minors. At this time I was called, and first offered North (as the last NOS player having called) to replace his pass with another call if he wanted to in light of the new explanation. He refused, so the auction continued as described with the clear understanding that South, who could not change his first call after the 2NT opening bid, would be eligible to a ruling after the end of the play if he would have called differently at that time given correct information and therefore felt damaged.

 

He called me again, and I had little problem adjusting the result effective for OS based on the accepted fact that South would have doubled 2NT and the result would most likely have ended up as 3♥N -2 with correct disclosure.

 

This was matchpoint scoring with 13 tables, The table result was (of course) a clear bottom -12 for NOS, 3♣W = would have given -1 for NOS and the adjusted result 3♥N -2 gave +6 to NOS.

 

My "problem" (if there is any) was if the re-opening double by South in this situation and/or the subsequent pass by North should be ruled SEWoG, resulting in a split score with OS receiving their -6, but NOS receiving -5 (the "normal" score reduced with 11 MP for SEWoG action)?

 

I shall appreciate comments.

[Finch]

No. Both actions were somewhat aggressive, but at matchpoints it looks wrong to defend 3C, and North's gamble on passing was hardly absurd (East had a supermaximum hand for a 'weak' 2NT opening). If NS had known from the start what EW were playing then they had two changes to double, to distinguish two different hand types (e.g. a strong double and a weak double, or both majors vs a more balanced hand), as it was they had to guess.

[nigel_k]

South's double is not a SEWOG. I wouldn't do it but aggressive reopening actions at matchpoints often work. However I don't understand why we would consider the double of 3♣ as possibly wild or gambling while happily accepting that South would have doubled 2NT with the correct explanation. Pass of 2NT by South looks normal to me after a correct explanation.

 

North's pass is very poor in my opinion. Maybe it is not absurd as Frances says but it must be quite close to absurd with three small cards opposite partner's takeout double and a major suit you can bid at the three level. The only thing that saves North, for me, is that partner was unable to double 2NT due to not having the correct explanation so now the double of 3♣ could be made on a very wide range of hands.

 

I would also adjust to 3H-2, but not because South would have doubled 2NT. If the explanation had been correct from the start, I would expect the same auction but with North bidding 3♥ at the end because he now knows partner doesn't have a good hand given the pass of 2NT.

[jallerton]

One of the problems with using acronyms is that people start to remember the acronyms themelves, rather than what they are supposed to stand for.

 

Many readers might assume that "SEWoG" stands for "serious error, wild or gambling" and then Sven would be denying redress if the non-offenders were judged to have made any such actions. However, the relevant Law says:

 

Law121[b) If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

South's double of 3♣ and North's subsequent pass are not "unrelated to the infraction" so it shouldn't matter if a TD had harshly judged either of these actions to be a "serious error" Love All at matchpoints.

 

Neither action is remotely close to being "wild or gambling" either.

[pran]

Thanks for the comments, they corroborate my judgement.

 

I am fully aware of Law 12C1{b} and what SEWoG really means, and I accepted South's double from the principle that NOS may not stop playing bridge because of an irregularity by opponents. I don't think he had any other alternatives than double or pass, and pass would be "stop playing bridge". North's pass is questionable, but he has a real choice between trying to cash in on doubled penalties and trying to find a favourable contract their way (which we now knows doesn't exist here). I can't blame him for selecting the first alternative.

 

regards Sven

[pran]

South's double is not a SEWOG. I wouldn't do it but aggressive reopening actions at matchpoints often work. However I don't understand why we would consider the double of 3♣ as possibly wild or gambling while happily accepting that South would have doubled 2NT with the correct explanation. Pass of 2NT by South looks normal to me after a correct explanation.

South's argument for doubling 2NT (correctly disclosed) was that against a weak minor hand he must take some action to show opening strength with good support for both major suits. Later could be too late.

[bluejak]

I would think pass over 2NT automatic. Doubling on a 4333 hand with not much defence against the minors or offence seems crazy to me.

 

I would poll, of course, but my instinct is to rule something along the lines of at least 60% of table result stands, if not more.

[pran]

I would think pass over 2NT automatic. Doubling on a 4333 hand with not much defence against the minors or offence seems crazy to me.

 

I would poll, of course, but my instinct is to rule something along the lines of at least 60% of table result stands, if not more.

I couldn't possibly consider pass over 2NT "automatic" as South already when I came to the table made it clear (to me, not to the other players) that he would not have passed with correct information.

 

So the only question to judge was if the non-offending side had contributed to their own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action. ( Law 12C1{b} )

 

I ruled that this was not the case, but I was interested in possible views on the matter.

[lamford]

I couldn't possibly consider pass over 2NT "automatic" as South already when I came to the table made it clear (to me, not to the other players) that he would not have passed with correct information.

 

So the only question to judge was if the non-offending side had contributed to their own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action. ( Law 12C1{b} )

 

I ruled that this was not the case, but I was interested in possible views on the matter.

While agreeing completely that neither action is remotely SeWoG, I agree with bluejak that a high percentage of the (unlucky) table result should stand, perhaps all of it. I don't think South would be taking immediate action - surely double of 2NT shows a better hand, even presumably without discussion as to what 3C and 3D would have meant.

 

North had already declined to replace his first pass - when offered by the TD - and at the time of his second pass he had full information. So, the only reason for an adjustment would be if it is deemed that South would have doubled 2NT, and that the rest of the auction for some reason would have been different. I think they would be more likely to defend 3C doubled in that case, as South would presumably double 2NT with strong balanced, so I am struggling to find any reason for an adjustment.

[bluejak]

I couldn't possibly consider pass over 2NT "automatic" as South already when I came to the table made it clear (to me, not to the other players) that he would not have passed with correct information.

I did not say it was automatic, I said I find it automatic so am dubious when others think it routine.

 

When you were called to the table South already knew from the logic of the auction that his partner had values and thus that a double of 2NT was perfectly safe.

[pran]

When you were called to the table South already knew from the logic of the auction that his partner had values and thus that a double of 2NT was perfectly safe.

I consider this relevant only if the double of 2NT (immediately after the 2NT bid) is judged SEWoG, which I do not agree it is. My main worry was the double of 3C.

 

If you want to see a "poll", here are the thirteen actual results on the board:

 

2H N 7 -50 12

2HX S 7 -100 6

3H S 7 -100 6

2S N 6 -100 6

3H N 7 -100 6

3H N 7 -100 6

2D E 9 -110 -1

3C E 9 -110 -1

2D E 10 -130 -5

2D E 10 -130 -5

2NT N 5 -150 -8

3S N 5 -200 -10

3HX N 7 -300 -12

 

Note that only 4 out of 13 left E/W declaring? (And 3 of those defended against 2D, auction unknown)

[Finch]

I consider this relevant only if the double of 2NT (immediately after the 2NT bid) is judged SEWoG, which I do not agree it is. My main worry was the double of 3C.

 

If you want to see a "poll", here are the thirteen actual results on the board:

 

2H N 7 -50 12

2HX S 7 -100 6

3H S 7 -100 6

2S N 6 -100 6

3H N 7 -100 6

3H N 7 -100 6

2D E 9 -110 -1

3C E 9 -110 -1

2D E 10 -130 -5

2D E 10 -130 -5

2NT N 5 -150 -8

3S N 5 -200 -10

3HX N 7 -300 -12

 

Note that only 4 out of 13 left E/W declaring? (And 3 of those defended against 2D, auction unknown)

 

What has this got to do with anything? On how many of those hands was 2NT opened showing both minors?

[bluejak]

I consider this relevant only if the double of 2NT (immediately after the 2NT bid) is judged SEWoG, which I do not agree it is.

So you are not adjusting on the basis that 2NT is doubled? If you are, you are doing so without knowing whether the player would have doubled: all you know is that the player says he would have doubled, and that he said it only at a time when he knew such a double was perfectly safe. How on earth you can considerer this irrelevant is beyond me. Rixi Markus was famous for never playing a wrong card after the hand, and similarly few people claim to make an unsuccessful call once they know what the hand actually is.

 

My main worry was the double of 3C.

Is it indeed? So you do not care whether you are making a totally incorrect ruling based on a highly speculative double of 2NT?

 

If you want to see a "poll", here are the thirteen actual results on the board:

 

2H N 7 -50 12

2HX S 7 -100 6

3H S 7 -100 6

2S N 6 -100 6

3H N 7 -100 6

3H N 7 -100 6

2D E 9 -110 -1

3C E 9 -110 -1

2D E 10 -130 -5

2D E 10 -130 -5

2NT N 5 -150 -8

3S N 5 -200 -10

3HX N 7 -300 -12

 

Note that only 4 out of 13 left E/W declaring? (And 3 of those defended against 2D, auction unknown)

Oh, yes? And did all of them start with a 2NT opener? If so, how many of them followed with an immediate double? And what earthly use is this poll if we do not know those two pieces of information?

[pran]

So you are not adjusting on the basis that 2NT is doubled? If you are, you are doing so without knowing whether the player would have doubled: all you know is that the player says he would have doubled, and that he said it only at a time when he knew such a double was perfectly safe. How on earth you can considerer this irrelevant is beyond me. Rixi Markus was famous for never playing a wrong card after the hand, and similarly few people claim to make an unsuccessful call once they know what the hand actually is.

 

 

Is it indeed? So you do not care whether you are making a totally incorrect ruling based on a highly speculative double of 2NT?

 

 

Oh, yes? And did all of them start with a 2NT opener? If so, how many of them followed with an immediate double? And what earthly use is this poll if we do not know those two pieces of information?

 

1: South holds a hand with which pass over a weak 2NT opening showing both minors is (normally) immediately a lost game (while pass over a strong 2NT is very sensible).

2: I see no sensible action in this position other than a double to inform partner of general strength and reasonable support in both majors.

3: After being denied any obvious action over 2NT his only chance to "continue playing bridge" after the irregularity is to take some action at his first turn to call once this irregularity becomes revealed.

4: The relevance of all table results was to show that only four out of thirteen North/South pairs let East/West be contracting. Of course not every East player opened 2NT, in fact it is obvious from the results that East cannot possibly have opened in 2NT at any of the tables where East/West became declaring.

 

I am not too impressed of your attitude towards other contributors; I can take and ignore your insults, but I don't think I shall bother making any further comments to you.

[campboy]

As others have said, it is not at all clear that the player really would have acted differently with correct information. It is completely safe to say, after you've already been deprived of your chance to double initially, that you would have done so, since the TD is never going to adjust the score except in your favour.

 

Moreover, it is unclear to me why you are more likely to get to 3♥ after an initial double than after a delayed double. The double at the table would be obviously takeout to me, but it is less clear that we can make takeout doubles after a double of 2NT -- of course we should ask N/S what their agreements are. What is your proposed auction to 3♥? Bear in mind that West is not going to remember the system until partner does something impossible.

[pran]

As others have said, it is not at all clear that the player really would have acted differently with correct information. It is completely safe to say, after you've already been deprived of your chance to double initially, that you would have done so, since the TD is never going to adjust the score except in your favour.

 

Moreover, it is unclear to me why you are more likely to get to 3♥ after an initial double than after a delayed double. The double at the table would be obviously takeout to me, but it is less clear that we can make takeout doubles after a double of 2NT -- of course we should ask N/S what their agreements are. What is your proposed auction to 3♥? Bear in mind that West is not going to remember the system until partner does something impossible.

When an irregularity has prevented normal development of auction and/or play then TD should accept statements from NOS on what actions they would have taken absent the irregularity (unless such stated actions are clearly speculative based on the existence of the irregularity). TD must definitely not without solid reason (implictly) accuse NOS of lying to him, and my experience is that players are honest and trustworthy in this respect. It is only natural that players are biased from what they know after the fact, but as reasonable doubt shall be resolved in favour of NOS. This is seldom (if ever) any problem.

 

If my partner doubles a 2NT opening bid showing both minors I would without any hesitation bid 3♥ holding North's hand in the actual case. (If he doubled a strong 2NT opening I would wonder who is psyching and pass.)

[campboy]

If my partner doubled a 2NT (minors) opening and I had the North hand, I would expect to defeat 2NT by several tricks. Why on earth would I do anything other than pass? I think it is then much more attractive for North to defend 3mx after this start than after South makes a second-round double having passed initially.

 

Even if it did start 2NT dbl pass/rdbl 3♥, this would not get passed out as West, who still believes his partner has a strong balanced hand, would double.

 

Furthermore, I do not see why I should accept without question a self-serving statement from NOS which my bridge experience (and bluejak's, which is vastly greater) says is highly improbable. I would cerrtainly have asked the player after the hand why he claims he would have doubled, and what double would mean.

[Poky]

I really do not understand Directors who tend to be creative without a valid reason.

 

Did South have he right information of the 2NT bid when he doubled 3♣?

- Yes, he did.

 

Would he bid something else on 2NT (with the right information) what would prevent him even to come in situation od doubling 3♣?

- No, he wouldn't. But even if we rule that he would, 4♥x -3 is worse than the score achieved at the table.

 

Therefore, 3♣x= stands for both sides. Easy job.

 

South probably tried to be tricky (by doubling in the hope of catching West without fit in minor or something like that) and shoot himself in the foot.

[pran]

If my partner doubled a 2NT (minors) opening and I had the North hand, I would expect to defeat 2NT by several tricks. Why on earth would I do anything other than pass? I think it is then much more attractive for North to defend 3mx after this start than after South makes a second-round double having passed initially.

 

Even if it did start 2NT dbl pass/rdbl 3♥, this would not get passed out as West, who still believes his partner has a strong balanced hand, would double.

 

Furthermore, I do not see why I should accept without question a self-serving statement from NOS which my bridge experience (and bluejak's, which is vastly greater) says is highly improbable. I would cerrtainly have asked the player after the hand why he claims he would have doubled, and what double would mean.

I did. Who says I didn't?

 

Of course any statement by NOS that possibly has been damaged will be "self-serving", what is the point? Once a statement from NOS represents real "logical alternatives" it should as a main rule be accepted.

 

We frown on self-serving statements from OS trying to protect themselves in a lost case, not from NOS requesting redress for real damage.

 

(And I hope you can accept that one or two isolated opinions that an action is highly improbable is rather irrelevant for the question of SEWoG, particularly when a majority on the scene expressed different opinions?)

[Poky]

2: I see no sensible action in this position other than a double to inform partner of general strength and reasonable support in both majors.

South has just about 2 HCP above average for this situation and an average support for majors. This is by no means "general strenght".

 

If you allow him to double 2NT (which is plain wrong, but you can make a poll), be prepared to take into consideration (except 3♣x= by EW) the following contracts: 4♥x by N, 3NTx by N, 3NT by N (3♥ not being an option, North has 9 points).

[campboy]

I did. Who says I didn't?

 

Of course any statement by NOS that possibly has been damaged will be "self-serving", what is the point? Once a statement from NOS represents real "logical alternatives" it should as a main rule be accepted.

 

We frown on self-serving statements from OS trying to protect themselves in a lost case, not from NOS requesting redress for real damage.

 

(And I hope you can accept that one or two isolated opinions that an action is highly improbable is rather irrelevant for the question of SEWoG, particularly when a majority on the scene expressed different opinions?)

I do not understand what "logical alternatives" have to do with anything. There is no question of use of UI. I also did not mention the question of SEWoG at all.

 

I do not "frown on" self-serving statements by either side, I simply recognise that they may be influenced by wishful thinking. I certainly take them into account, and this statement increases my estimate of the probability that the player would double 2NT -- but it does not increase it to anything near certainty.

 

Anyway, I think this is a distraction. My main point is that even if we accept that the player would double 2NT, I do not think 3♥ undoubled is a likely -- or even plausible -- outcome.

[bluejak]

1: South holds a hand with which pass over a weak 2NT opening showing both minors is (normally) immediately a lost game (while pass over a strong 2NT is very sensible).

Absolutely true. But bidding over it is the quickest way to -800 by coming at the 3-level on a weak no-trump with no shape, so is not automatic. Furthermore, if you double on a hand as weak as this partner will have difficulty evaluating hands.

 

2: I see no sensible action in this position other than a double to inform partner of general strength and reasonable support in both majors.

Fair enough: but others do, and I think pass should be considered.

 

When an irregularity has prevented normal development of auction and/or play then TD should accept statements from NOS on what actions they would have taken absent the irregularity (unless such stated actions are clearly speculative based on the existence of the irregularity). TD must definitely not without solid reason (implictly) accuse NOS of lying to him, and my experience is that players are honest and trustworthy in this respect. It is only natural that players are biased from what they know after the fact, but as reasonable doubt shall be resolved in favour of NOS. This is seldom (if ever) any problem.

This is too simplistic, and as with other self-serving statements assuming them to be correct is not necessarily a good idea. Players do not always know how they would bid in a particular situation and it is very difficult for them to give the wrong answer when they know the answer that succeeds. Better is for TDs to use polls and their own judgement and that of their consultants and consider the range of possible actions.

 

Of course any statement by NOS that possibly has been damaged will be "self-serving", what is the point? Once a statement from NOS represents real "logical alternatives" it should as a main rule be accepted.

 

We frown on self-serving statements from OS trying to protect themselves in a lost case, not from NOS requesting redress for real damage.

We frown on self-serving statements because it is very difficult for players to be completely honest even with themselves when they are asked something and they know which answer is to their benefit. This applies just as much to non-offenders as to offenders.

[mycroft]

If doubling 2NT is "automatic" for South with an effective 11 count (12 shell, minus something for 3433) with 6 LTs in East's suit without confidence that E-W have a fit, so North will be short, I want to play my Precision system (which includes the same 2NT opener) against him for money. Give West any one of North's controls (assuming that "weak" means something close to East's hand) and he's going to just love 2NT-X-XX-p-p... (especially as without the double, they'll be -110 or -130 into a bunch of -150s and -400s. So doubling turns an A+ at least into a very round zero).

 

Having said that, East is a supermax for any "weak" minors bid I've ever seen (in my system at all white, making the CA a small one would make it a maximum, but I'd probably think it too big for 4-8 anyway because of the void. I might do it with the hand posted at unfavourable, but not equal VUL (VUL, we're 8-12)).

 

Also, having said that, I am very willing to let "well, South knows *now* that doubling 2NT was safe" slide, at least a bit, when the offenders clearly caused this problem. "Yeah, I don't really believe him either, but if you had just remembered your system and Alerted and explained it right the first time, then we could have seen whether he did it straight up. So you'll excuse me if I give him some of the benefit of the doubt here".

 

The "well, nobody else got there" fake poll makes my blood boil. "Yeah, but how many other tables got a 2NT opening?" is my reaction any time a director tries that on me here. If everybody is playing the same system, you can assume that many of the auctions are similar and can count as a poll. But not in general, and explicitly not when people are playing an unusual system.

[bluejak]

Also, having said that, I am very willing to let "well, South knows *now* that doubling 2NT was safe" slide, at least a bit, when the offenders clearly caused this problem. "Yeah, I don't really believe him either, but if you had just remembered your system and Alerted and explained it right the first time, then we could have seen whether he did it straight up. So you'll excuse me if I give him some of the benefit of the doubt here".

Remember, mycroft, this one is not a North American problem. No-one needs to decide whether or not South would double: it is not black or white. We can adjust on the basis that a percentage of the time he would double, and a percentage not. Since he is the non-offending side we can lean a little in his favour from what we actually think.

[dburn]

Since the original post contains the datum that:

 

"2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural"

 

one might be more inclined than one would otherwise be to accept the statement that South would not have passed over it had it been described as unnatural.